Originally posted by jimbo

What do you think of the prisoner shootings in Fallujah?
I don't think it's right for any person or government to snuff out human life. I suppose one could justify killing on the grounds of self defense or to prevent the death of others but I'm not sure I could do it myself. I'm thankful that I'm almost 100% sure I'll never have to make that choice, since we as a society pay others to do our killing for us.

I like steak - but I would probably be a vegetarian if I had to kill the steer myself instead of picking up a chunk of professionally killed bovine at the supermarket. I hardly ever think about how that animal lived and died when I pay for it at the cash register. Do you hear what I'm saying...? I know Bush doesn't!

(you busted on my train/space-time metaphor so i figure steak/american way of life, butcher/dogs of war won't go over well either but i'm just stupid enough to toss another metaphor out there for ya - have at it)

I see the issue of gay marriage (for example) being about being able to marry the person you love, to possibly fall under the "pursuit of happiness" clause in the constitution
I agree. I've talked to my friend many times about this and for the life of me I still don't know why a man would want to... uh.... do the things he does to another man when women are so beautiful - but if that's what it takes to make him happy then I fully believe there's a place for him in America. We declared our independance from the King of Great Britain by saying "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". A lot of patriot blood was shed so he could persue that happiness.


In other words I am far more comfortable with a strong and liberal leaning judicial branch. A progressive minded bench to balance out the other branches and make sure that the rights of minority groups of all kinds are protected.
Here is where we differ my fellow long-winded foil. I believe Supreme court judges should not "lean" one way or the other when rendering decisions. If we the people decide our representatives in the legislative or executive branches are out of line, we can vote them out of office. We get the chance to oust them for every 4 or 6 years. They can't get TOO out of touch with their public's desires and stay in office long. So don't worry so much about the balance of power in those branches. It is self-correcting. The judiciary isn't like that though. We cannot vote them out of office, therefore they should be non-partisan. Their job isn't to make law but rather to compare it against the Constitution, which should be their standard - not their own personal opinions or even the whims public opinion. And that's my personal opinion.

I like the way our country has grown and changed in the last 50 years and want that trend to continue. (obviously sense I am such a liberal elitist bullsh#tter) LOL ]

Well I may be out of touch, but I'm one of those people who thinks it was better "back in the day". But I'll admit - life's not too bad now. The longing for "the good old days" may be a temporary, phase that's particularly acute right now because I'm trying to get an after school program for at-risk youth started at a local inner-city elementary school where I do some tutoring. Researching for the "needs" part of the grant application has been an eye-opener. I thought it was just this school that was a lot rougher than when I was in elementary school but apparently there's a nation-wide problem. I don't have it with me here at work but I ran across a Time Magazine article at the library comparing the problems schools reported in the 40's with today's problems. Big problems in the 40's were things like chewing gum, talking in class, running in the hall, not throwing trash in the waste basket. Problems today - fighting, drug possession, weapons possession, assault on teachers and staff, pregnancy. And keep in mind we're talking elementary and middle school here. Pregnant 7th graders...

Now you tell me - is that a good trend? What happened in the last 60 years in our nation's school systems? I'm betting you don't want to go down that road!

Bush admits he has not had to veto one piece of legislation because there was total agreement between the conservative powers in congress and his office. That doesn't seem like the checks and balances are in place currently to me.

Those bills didn't make it through congress without a lot of debate and a lot of Democrat votes and you know it. The Republicans only have a very slim majority (in 108th, S = 48D:51R and H= 205D:229R) they don't OWN congress by any stretch of the imagination. I would say the reason Bush hasn't had to veto anything is because the conference committee members and Chairmen have been better this term at resolving differences before the bill ever gets to the prez.